9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 11, 1963, by which he has reviewed his earlier order dated August 13, 1962, allowing Writ Petition No. 1558 of 1962 filed by the appellant. The writ petition was filed against proceedings for the recovery of arrears of income-tax and was based on the ground that the recovery proceedings were time-barred. In his judgment allowing the writ petition, Manchanda J. held that the notice of dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin time. On the ground that relevant documents had been suppressed as well as on the ground that, on the basis of these relevant documents, the recovery proceedings had been taken within time, Manchanda J. allowed the review applications and dismissed the writ petition. It may be mentioned that, at the hearing of the review application, certain technical objections were raised. One of the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t one. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab it is now well settled that the High Court has power to review an. order made under article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant's contention that no review application lay is, therefore, without any force. In our opinion, the review application filed by the respondents was not time-barred. Nothing has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the time for making the payment was extended upto May 15, 1956. The recovery proceedings were started in December, 1956, and were well within the period of limitation prescribed. That being so, there was no good reason for quashing the recovery proceedings. Manchanda J. was fully justified in allowing the review application and dismissing the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
